are liberals REALLY liberal?

[Moonglow]

i think most liberals see their ideology as one based on emotion...things like kindness, and tolerant, and open minded...while they see conservatives as the opposite. They don't care much for economics or logical discussion because they are ALWAYS defeated in debate. No one can trump the likes of hazlitt or sowell when it comes to economic understanding.

So, libs...do you really think this?
Let's see: http://www.prageru.com/test

Sowell is still backing laissez faire We saw what the result was of that economic disaster ideaology

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And for me, a TP-er, Constitutional integrity is original intent as the Founders understood it and explained it.

And who decides the ‘original intent’? By what authority?

If the interpretation does not translate to a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance, then in my view the interpretation is wrong.

Interpretation by whom? Cite an example – otherwise this is meaningless dross.

The fundamental failure of the right in general and the TPM in particular is the inability to understand – or the outright rejection of – the rule of law.

For example, when a majority of Californians voted to violate the equal protection rights of homosexuals with regard to access to marriage law, they violated the original intent of the Framers with regard to the rule of law – that the people not suffer the tyranny of the majority.

Indeed, we hear noting from the right or TPM about excess from state and local governments, no concern that those governments are violating the rights of their citizens. According to the TPM, therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable for a state government to fail to protect our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability to self-govern.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I can understand and appreciate that view but even then, it seems that most TPers want a "a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance" as they define them.

For example: I would consider safe air and water an inalienable right. So I consider it wrong for a corporation like Ford to pollute the River Rouge and Lake Erie (I'm from Detroit) to the point that the FEDERAL government had to step in (local MI government were in the pockets of the Big 3 and so did nothing) and declare national disasters. So yes, I would leave the EPA federal.

So I don't see taking away all powers not specifically defined by the USC, as the panacea that Libertarians and TP's do.

Another example would be the NRC. I'm all for nuke power (which pisses off many of my LibDem friends) but would I leave the regulation of a power plant to a grand total of two senators and a few congressmen - or a state legislature that has been bought and paid for by the biggest employer in the state? Hell no. That's just stupid to me.

Yes I would get rid of DHS, REB and a host of other wasteful agencies but I am nowhere near sharing the interpretation that many members of these groups do.

I think a lot of this comes from having lived in countries with very little government - centralized or otherwise. There's a reason I've always come home to the good ol' US of A!

There is no unalienable right to pollute the air that another must breathe. I think you would be hard put to find a TPer who would think that there is. There is no unalienable right to contaminate somebody else's space with radiation or to put another at unreasonable risk for contamination with radiation. So yes, there is room for federal regulatory standards for air and water the states must share.

Do you honestly believe that somebody elected to high office is somehow more noble, honest, less able to be bought, and more immune to his own self interests? I would rather keep my friends close and enemies closer. The local guys may be scoundrels but they can do far less damage than can somebody using the full force and effect of the federal government to do their schemes.

However, because a nuclear accident can have serious consequences for people outside any given state as well as in it, I can see reasonable federal regulatory standards as a valid function of the federal government.

Smaller, more efficient, more effective government does not translate into shutting everything down or assigning nothing to the federal government. It translates into the federal government doing what the Constitution mandates it to do, to do what states cannot do to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and leaving to the states and local communities to govern themselves in everything else. When we had that system, the USA was the most prosperous, innovative, productive, and free nation on Earth. If we don't pay attention to that concept, we will lose it.

Well, if more Libertarians and TPers thought like you, I think they would have a lot more credibility with Independents (but probably still not Liberals).
The thing that frustrates me with Libs and even more so with Conservs, is the dichotomous "either / or" thinking.
I'll give you an example. I own a business and we're doing well. We're hiring in Vegas - hwere no one is. So some Right Wing Whackjob makes this post that EVERY person in this country who wants a job could have one tomorrow.
While I agree that there are certainly a lot of people who are abusing this NINETY NINE weeks thing (unreal!), I told him about a guy who applied with us. No degree. Former casino chip-counter (whatever the hell that is). Fifty years old. No computer skills. No other experience. Okay, there's the exception to the rule, say I.
Mr. Whackjob? Nah. If it doesn't fit neatly into the Conservative Propaganda, it doesn't exist.

I see that on both sides but definitely more with the Conservs. I've been called a Conserv and even a NeoCon all of a few times by the Libs. But disagree with Conservs on one single point - or even agree with thm but dare to say there might be exceptions to the rule? The Whackjob Wagon gets rolling and they instantly label you a "Lefty" or just plain insult you. All discussion and debate is over. You are now officially "one of them!". That kind of whackjobbery makes it tough to appreciate anyone's positions.

Actually the Tea Party movement is probably made up of more Independents than Republicans. Here in New Mexico that is heavily registered Democratic, the Democrats may actually have a slight plurality in some places. The Tea Party movement is based on a concept, a principle, not on specific legislation or 'how to'. The Tea Party may elect a candidate to go to Washington or the State House to rein in spending, reform unsustainable entitlements, and balance the budget without raising taxes so that they can spend as much as they want. They won't tell that candidate HOW to do it. But he or she gets his/her marching orders that this is what we want accomplished.

Please don't confuse the right wingnuts and rightwing numbnuts with TPers. The Tea Party is not an ideology. It is a principle. But yes, that principle is anathema to most liberals because it involves recognizing the people's right to govern themselves. Again that is anathema to modern American liberalism who looks to big central government to create the sort of society it believes it wants.

For instance I agree that pretty much anybody able to work and who wants to work can work at something whether that is self employment, odd jobbing, gathering aluminum cans to turn in for cash, greeter at Wal-mart, or harvesting lettuce. In a climate like our current one, however, there won't be enough of certain jobs available for everybody who qualifies for those jobs so many people will have to take whatever they can get. And, as you pointed out, many people simply have not qualified themselves to do many of the jobs that are out there.

But if we can get the Federal government to relinquish the reins and give them back to the people through elimination of unnecessary regulation, unnecessary taxes, and unnecessary restrictions, meaning the Federal government gives up a lot of its sacred cows, the American people will start creating jobs that will result in more jobs, and everybody who wants a decent job can have one. Keynesian economics has failed. It is time to turn it back over to the free market, laizzez faire system.

 

[Moonglow]

TPers also do not understand the the Constitution is a living flexible document. the Founding Fathers understood that it was incomplete for all time and history of the US of A, and allowed the document to be amended to change with the needs of the US of A. It is not a rigid document that can never be changed and expanded upon.

 

[Moonglow]

There is no unalienable right to pollute the air that another must breathe. I think you would be hard put to find a TPer who would think that there is. There is no unalienable right to contaminate somebody else's space with radiation or to put another at unreasonable risk for contamination with radiation. So yes, there is room for federal regulatory standards for air and water the states must share.

Do you honestly believe that somebody elected to high office is somehow more noble, honest, less able to be bought, and more immune to his own self interests? I would rather keep my friends close and enemies closer. The local guys may be scoundrels but they can do far less damage than can somebody using the full force and effect of the federal government to do their schemes.

However, because a nuclear accident can have serious consequences for people outside any given state as well as in it, I can see reasonable federal regulatory standards as a valid function of the federal government.

Smaller, more efficient, more effective government does not translate into shutting everything down or assigning nothing to the federal government. It translates into the federal government doing what the Constitution mandates it to do, to do what states cannot do to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and leaving to the states and local communities to govern themselves in everything else. When we had that system, the USA was the most prosperous, innovative, productive, and free nation on Earth. If we don't pay attention to that concept, we will lose it.

Well, if more Libertarians and TPers thought like you, I think they would have a lot more credibility with Independents (but probably still not Liberals).
The thing that frustrates me with Libs and even more so with Conservs, is the dichotomous "either / or" thinking.
I'll give you an example. I own a business and we're doing well. We're hiring in Vegas - hwere no one is. So some Right Wing Whackjob makes this post that EVERY person in this country who wants a job could have one tomorrow.
While I agree that there are certainly a lot of people who are abusing this NINETY NINE weeks thing (unreal!), I told him about a guy who applied with us. No degree. Former casino chip-counter (whatever the hell that is). Fifty years old. No computer skills. No other experience. Okay, there's the exception to the rule, say I.
Mr. Whackjob? Nah. If it doesn't fit neatly into the Conservative Propaganda, it doesn't exist.

I see that on both sides but definitely more with the Conservs. I've been called a Conserv and even a NeoCon all of a few times by the Libs. But disagree with Conservs on one single point - or even agree with thm but dare to say there might be exceptions to the rule? The Whackjob Wagon gets rolling and they instantly label you a "Lefty" or just plain insult you. All discussion and debate is over. You are now officially "one of them!". That kind of whackjobbery makes it tough to appreciate anyone's positions.

Actually the Tea Party movement is probably made up of more Independents than Republicans. Here in New Mexico that is heavily registered Democratic, the Democrats may actually have a slight plurality in some places. The Tea Party movement is based on a concept, a principle, not on specific legislation or 'how to'. The Tea Party may elect a candidate to go to Washington or the State House to rein in spending, reform unsustainable entitlements, and balance the budget without raising taxes so that they can spend as much as they want. They won't tell that candidate HOW to do it. But he or she gets his/her marching orders that this is what we want accomplished.

Please don't confuse the right wingnuts and rightwing numbnuts with TPers. The Tea Party is not an ideology. It is a principle. But yes, that principle is anathema to most liberals because it involves recognizing the people's right to govern themselves. Again that is anathema to modern American liberalism who looks to big central government to create the sort of society it believes it wants.

For instance I agree that pretty much anybody able to work and who wants to work can work at something whether that is self employment, odd jobbing, gathering aluminum cans to turn in for cash, greeter at Wal-mart, or harvesting lettuce. In a climate like our current one, however, there won't be enough of certain jobs available for everybody who qualifies for those jobs so many people will have to take whatever they can get. And, as you pointed out, many people simply have not qualified themselves to do many of the jobs that are out there.

But if we can get the Federal government to relinquish the reins and give them back to the people through elimination of unnecessary regulation, unnecessary taxes, and unnecessary restrictions, meaning the Federal government gives up a lot of its sacred cows, the American people will start creating jobs that will result in more jobs, and everybody who wants a decent job can have one. Keynesian economics has failed. It is time to turn it back over to the free market, laizzez faire system.

I bet you are looking forward to monopolies, child slave labor, squalor tenetry by industries that control the living standards and houses where the workers live, sub standard foodstuffs, no breaks while working, private armies of industry to overthrow governments to obtain their resources.
oh yeah and another great depression which is what occurred the last time we had a laizzez faire system

 

[The Gadfly]

TPers also do not understand the the Constitution is a living flexible document. the Founding Fathers understood that it was incomplete for all time and history of the US of A, and allowed the document to be amended to change with the needs of the US of A. It is not a rigid document that can never be changed and expanded upon.

Of course it can be, and the Founding Fathers provided the proper procedure; it's called an amendment. Yes the process is long and difficult, and can't be done overnight; it was intended to be so, because they rightly considered changing that document a most serious matter, not to be done lightly, or carelessly, but with a great deal of thought, and after careful deliberation and consideration. Yes, it require more than a simple plurality to do it, but if the vast majority of the people can be convinced that it's the right thing to do, it will get done, as it has quite a few times before. Instant gratification, however, is , I'm afraid, quite out of the question.

 

[Foxfyre]

And for me, a TP-er, Constitutional integrity is original intent as the Founders understood it and explained it.

And who decides the ‘original intent’? By what authority?

By their authority. The Founders left us reams of their writings, transcripts of their words, letters, and other documents clearly defining their intent that was written into the Constitution. Of course that would require us to go back to actually educating our citizens in the basics of history then, and how it has worked out since. I fear that only a conservative teacher, instructor, or professor would teach the basics without bias though.

If the interpretation does not translate to a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance, then in my view the interpretation is wrong.

Interpretation by whom? Cite an example – otherwise this is meaningless dross.

The fundamental failure of the right in general and the TPM in particular is the inability to understand – or the outright rejection of – the rule of law.

For example, when a majority of Californians voted to violate the equal protection rights of homosexuals with regard to access to marriage law, they violated the original intent of the Framers with regard to the rule of law – that the people not suffer the tyranny of the majority.

Indeed, we hear noting from the right or TPM about excess from state and local governments, no concern that those governments are violating the rights of their citizens. According to the TPM, therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable for a state government to fail to protect our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability to self-govern.

The Framers intended each state and/or each community to fom whatever society it wished to have. They did not want a king or other high authority with unlimited power to dictate what sort of society we will be. If one does not like the sort of society that his fellows have created where he is, it is his unalienable right to relocate to someplace more to his liking. And if there is dispute over the constitutionality of any law, it was given to the courts to sort that out.

As my new friend IndependentLogic pointed out though, sometimes the interpretation of 'right' and 'wrong' is in the eye of the beholder. So most people who want federal intervention into something want that intervention to be the way those people see it, and not in favor of the other side.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, if more Libertarians and TPers thought like you, I think they would have a lot more credibility with Independents (but probably still not Liberals).
The thing that frustrates me with Libs and even more so with Conservs, is the dichotomous "either / or" thinking.
I'll give you an example. I own a business and we're doing well. We're hiring in Vegas - hwere no one is. So some Right Wing Whackjob makes this post that EVERY person in this country who wants a job could have one tomorrow.
While I agree that there are certainly a lot of people who are abusing this NINETY NINE weeks thing (unreal!), I told him about a guy who applied with us. No degree. Former casino chip-counter (whatever the hell that is). Fifty years old. No computer skills. No other experience. Okay, there's the exception to the rule, say I.
Mr. Whackjob? Nah. If it doesn't fit neatly into the Conservative Propaganda, it doesn't exist.

I see that on both sides but definitely more with the Conservs. I've been called a Conserv and even a NeoCon all of a few times by the Libs. But disagree with Conservs on one single point - or even agree with thm but dare to say there might be exceptions to the rule? The Whackjob Wagon gets rolling and they instantly label you a "Lefty" or just plain insult you. All discussion and debate is over. You are now officially "one of them!". That kind of whackjobbery makes it tough to appreciate anyone's positions.

Actually the Tea Party movement is probably made up of more Independents than Republicans. Here in New Mexico that is heavily registered Democratic, the Democrats may actually have a slight plurality in some places. The Tea Party movement is based on a concept, a principle, not on specific legislation or 'how to'. The Tea Party may elect a candidate to go to Washington or the State House to rein in spending, reform unsustainable entitlements, and balance the budget without raising taxes so that they can spend as much as they want. They won't tell that candidate HOW to do it. But he or she gets his/her marching orders that this is what we want accomplished.

Please don't confuse the right wingnuts and rightwing numbnuts with TPers. The Tea Party is not an ideology. It is a principle. But yes, that principle is anathema to most liberals because it involves recognizing the people's right to govern themselves. Again that is anathema to modern American liberalism who looks to big central government to create the sort of society it believes it wants.

For instance I agree that pretty much anybody able to work and who wants to work can work at something whether that is self employment, odd jobbing, gathering aluminum cans to turn in for cash, greeter at Wal-mart, or harvesting lettuce. In a climate like our current one, however, there won't be enough of certain jobs available for everybody who qualifies for those jobs so many people will have to take whatever they can get. And, as you pointed out, many people simply have not qualified themselves to do many of the jobs that are out there.

But if we can get the Federal government to relinquish the reins and give them back to the people through elimination of unnecessary regulation, unnecessary taxes, and unnecessary restrictions, meaning the Federal government gives up a lot of its sacred cows, the American people will start creating jobs that will result in more jobs, and everybody who wants a decent job can have one. Keynesian economics has failed. It is time to turn it back over to the free market, laizzez faire system.

I bet you are looking forward to monopolies, child slave labor, squalor tenetry by industries that control the living standards and houses where the workers live, sub standard foodstuffs, no breaks while working, private armies of industry to overthrow governments to obtain their resources.
oh yeah and another great depression which is what occurred the last time we had a laizzez faire system

Thank you for a beautiful illustration of my earlier observation of how liberals debate these things. Rather than discuss the concept and provide a reasoned rebuttal, you went straight for ad hominem, red herrings, and more than a few straw men built in. Why don't you try again with a reasoned argument and be prepared to support any examples you use? And begin with the concept that the violation of unalienable rights should be enforced by everybody, including the Federal government, everywhere.